The challenges of autonomy and blossoming of decentralization

Adam Tyson, Leeds, UK

Ambivalence seems the most appropriate way to describe the mixed emotions felt by observers of Indonesia's decentralization program. This was clearly discernable after a casual visit to one of Bandung's top political departments.

Faculty members knitted their brows and sighed from time to time, fretting over the potential for disorder and instability that decentralization brings, while at the same time harboring a sense of hope for the future.

Hope is found in the potential for greater democracy as it is transferred downwards, closer to the people, enhancing what political scientists call representation, accountability, transparency and participation. Fear is created by the potential for conflict, territorial disintegration, and increasing corruption, to name but a few.

For those that do not suffer from collective amnesia, the painful memories of the crisis period from 1997 to 1998 lead to a sensible desire to avoid social breakdown at almost all costs. People of this persuasion may look upon decentralization (or regional autonomy as it is commonly referred to in Indonesia) with a skeptical eye, given the uncertainty that now surrounds its implementation.

A plethora of contestations have resulted from the ambiguities of the decentralization legislation, and politics has become even more complicated as parties and groups jockey, lobby and maneuver for influence and control.

Much of this volatility is caused by what the International Crisis Group identifies as pemekaran (blossoming) whereby local administrative and territorial boundaries are redefined and redrawn, usually multiplying in number. Local, provincial and national interest groups now seek to rally support for their causes, meaning that fragmentation often replaces unity in the new era of decentralization.

People align themselves based on ever smaller units of interest, such as customary adat groups, religious affiliations, ethnic ties, or kinship. Otherwise people rally behind charismatic leadership from former traditional leaders such as sultans or local heroes, those of the magnanimous genre. Indeed, there seems to be little reason why an Indonesian pop idol could not hold significant political sway if he or she was so inclined.

A host of new actors are joining the fray, with innovative NGOs, aid agencies and donor governments catering their agendas to fit the new trends in local politics, and lining up to fund all kinds of projects in the name of democratic decentralization. There are now appeals to indigenous rights, sustainable village development, self-determining environmentally sound community- driven local initiatives, and all kinds of long-winded mainstream slogans that appear to be quite new and groundbreaking.

Rural activists are finding new support systems that would have seemed impossible twenty years ago. Suddenly the impacts of decentralization upon logging amongst the Dayaks of Central Kalimantan are making hot topics for academics and finding their ways into the executive summaries of developmental organizations.

Nothing appears beyond the scope of the activist or academic community, with the lens focusing on such 'obscure' issues as Bugis transmigration throughout Sulawesi; Minangkabau politics and identity in West Sumatra; the quest for self-determination in Riau province; the symbolism of traditional dress amongst adat communities in Northern Lombok, and so on.

Without the commanding centralism of the New Order to bind this vast archipelago, a new formula for reconciling all these competing interests will have to be applied. Perhaps this can be related to the recent commentaries written about the sixtieth anniversary of Merdeka (Independence) whereby the virtues of nation-building, pluralism and tolerance were frequently espoused.

The need to deal with such issues reflects the coming-of-age that is inevitable after six decades of independence, although there are still significant obstacles to overcome. The aforementioned diversity of interests and variety of means to galvanize support for local causes has been highlighted by decentralization, and hints at the enormity of the task at hand.

Therefore the search for some coherence will be ongoing and will surely cause Indonesia's academic community some more awkward and sleepless nights. Pragmatists would probably argue that the real substance is in the actualization of reforms and the improvement of local livelihoods. On this front there are great regional discrepancies and much to be improved.

The writer is a lecturer at University of Leeds, United Kingdom.